Talk:JD Decompiler

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

Would you see this in a traditional encyclopedia??[edit]

Hi, I think the user who created this article is more likely to be the developer of JD, but I'm not sure. I'll tell you anyway why I've put these "multiple issues" template in the article (DON'T TRY TO REMOVE THEM), I've read the article carefully before adding the notices, I've seen the only thing this article tells is "what is JD" and the sample source code. In the first place, Wikipedia is not an advertising network, is an encyclopedia WP:SOAP, in the last place you do not cited any sources (not even non-independent sources) WP:V. Sorry but this article won't last too much time, an admin will check the article and will thank me.

UPDATE: I've found this article through Help > Wikipedia, so you are more likely to be the developer (but I can't be 100% sure). TheWikiContributor (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The version that was just a simple introduction followed by a bunch of code was introduced on 6 November 2017, so I have reverted to the version before that. It's poorly sourced and may not pass notability, but I don't see the content of the stable version as being unambiguously promotional. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]